WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A liberal advocacy group's print ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus drew a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle on Monday.

The ad, running in Monday's edition of the New York Times, shows a picture of Petraeus. Bold letters spell out "General Petraeus or General Betray us?"

Moveon.org Political Action, which paid for the ad, accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House" on progress being made in Iraq and calls him "a military man constantly at war with the facts."

White House spokesman Tony Snow called the ad, running the same day the general testified before Congress about Iraq, a "boorish, childish, unworthy attack."

When asked early Monday if this was the right message for his party to send, the Nevada Democrat curtly answered, "No."

In a separate conversation, a senior Democratic leadership aide called the ad an "unnecessary distraction" and said Democrats are prepared to focus on "Petraeus executing a mismanaged mission."

Reid's decision to distance himself from the ad came as several Republican leaders called on Democrats to condemn it.

"Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics Moveon.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

"General Petraeus and the other commanders in the U.S. Armed Services have dedicated their lives to defending the very freedom that enables Moveon.org the right to free speech. I support that right, but I find the way they have chosen to exercise it today to be disrespectful and downright reprehensible," Boehner said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut, also called on the Democratic leadership to "denounce Moveon.org attack on Gen. Petraeus." Lieberman has been supportive of President Bush's efforts in Iraq.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, called the ad "over the top."

"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.

"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.

Moveon.org said Monday it stood by the ad completely.

"Every major independent study and many major news organizations cast serious doubt on Petraeus' claims," Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action Committee, said in a statement.

"It should come as no surprise that General Petraeus' claims have come under critical scrutiny: The facts all point in one direction -- the surge isn't working -- and General Petraeus and the White House are pointing in another," the statement said.

"No wonder recent polls show that the American people agree with the ad also: A majority expect that the general will deliver 'a biased report that reflects what the Bush administration wants the public to believe,'" the statement said, quoting from a USA Today/Gallup poll reported in Monday's USA Today.

I repeat, MoveOn.org is not affiliated with either party. They are an independent organization, a private enterprise. They are not sponsored by or funded by the Democratic party or the Republican Party. Some of their donors are registered Democrats, I'm sure, but that does not make them an affiliate of the Democratic party. They also support Democratic candidates more often than any other party, and again, this does not make them an affiliate of the Democratic party. You're supposed to be a teacher, aren't you? I'm sure you don't need to be educated on what "affiliated" means.

__________________
"Human tales? But human don't have tails, they have big, big bottoms that they wear with bad shorts, and walk around going, 'Hi, Helen!'" -- Batty (Robin Williams), in Fern Gully

I repeat, MoveOn.org is not affiliated with either party. They are an independent organization, a private enterprise. They are not sponsored by or funded by the Democratic party or the Republican Party. Some of their donors are registered Democrats, I'm sure, but that does not make them an affiliate of the Democratic party. They also support Democratic candidates more often than any other party, and again, this does not make them an affiliate of the Democratic party. You're supposed to be a teacher, aren't you? I'm sure you don't need to be educated on what "affiliated" means.

__________________
On January 3rd, 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.60% with a RECORD 52 months of JOBS growth and the GDP was 3.50%. January 3rd, 2007 is also the day Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the House and the US Senate.

In truth, I haven't paid much attention to this Patreus report as yet, so I'm not sure of all the details.

It is not unfair to characterize top military leaders as being both politically savvy (often a job requirement of sorts) and politicized by pressures external to the military.

That said, I would need a HELL of a lot of evidence before I would begin to accuse someone who has spent their whole life serving our country as being a betrayer or anything of the kind.

The voice or reason from the left, in here.

__________________
Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel...

So you think they're affiliated, too? Can you show where the Democratic Party (i.e. the DNC or party officials) is bankrolling or sponsoring the organization, or calling its shots? There is a difference between an organization being comprised of people (only some of whom are Democrats) whose agenda on certain issues (the war in Iraq, for instance) coincides with that of the Democratic party and thus throws its support behind the Democratic party at times to further that agenda, and being an actual affiliate of the party. Contrast that with the ironically-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which did have officials (not just registered members, but party officials) from the Republican Party funding some of its operations. By contrast, MoveOn.org, as radical and nonsensical as they may be, is not similarly funded or sponsored by the DNC.

And the point stands, the more attention you people give them, the more publicity you give them, the more legitimacy you give them. You can bet that when some members of Congress decided to make a stink about it, there were quite a few people who viewed the ad as a result who probably would not have seen it otherwise. I'm sure that some of those probably agreed with it, so you can very like thank those members of Congress, bloggers and the like for increasing MoveOn's readership and support. It reminds me of when a major supermarket chain back in the 80s hired picketers to protest their own store, because they draw attention and people would go in out of curiosity and end up buying things. Sometimes ignoring things is better than giving them publicity.

__________________
"Human tales? But human don't have tails, they have big, big bottoms that they wear with bad shorts, and walk around going, 'Hi, Helen!'" -- Batty (Robin Williams), in Fern Gully